User talk:Mrzaius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Four hyphens is all that is needed :)

BesigedB 23:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Articles

I understand you recently posted asking for a definition of 'Sane build environment'. While we encourage users to request new articles, we would be grateful if you reposted it on Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thanks. --Xyrael 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-Done, MrZaius^talk

[edit] Okay...

would do it myself...

[edit] Need to update

You really need to update your User page. You don't go to USI anymore and you don't work in a cornfield anymore. Why aren't you in any of the WikiProjects, btw? Jablair51 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do still work in corn fields, on occasion. Point taken, though. Mrzaius 14:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. MrZaius^talk 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good jorb there mate. ;) Jablair51 06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicagoland

I'm glad that you have joined me in my quest to free Little Egypt from the opressive rule of Chicagoland. We need to start a movement. First business: a flag! Jablair51 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No. First step, a userbox! MrZaius^talk 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual articles

Best Wikipedia page ever: Wikipedia:Unusual articles - Jablair51 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

It would appear that your Userbox for Lincoln MarkVII has gotten messed up. You might want to look into that. Jablair51 02:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The original image was pulled due to copyright concerns. The current image isn't cropped to the right size, as it was a 5 minute rushed job taken w/my digicam yesterday afternoon. Crappy image all around, as I had to airbrush out my busted radio antenna. MrZaius^talk 13:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much wasted time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_internet_service_providers Check the history. Today I wasted an hour editing the list and then reviewing its validity under Wikipedia guidelines, and then requesting its deletion. WP:HOLIC#You_know_you_have_a_problem_when...MrZaius^talk 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MQM

Hi, there is someone changing longstanding parts of the MQM article. He removed CITED points from organizations like UNHCR, Department of State, and the BBC. He simply comes in and deletes everything. Please help! --Disinterested 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not an op. See User_talk:Disinterested. MrZaius^talk 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It'd be great if we could get a person familiar with Pakistani politics to mediate this matter. I'm not against valid, relevant points but this guy just keeps removing material that is cited many times by reputable organizations. --Disinterested 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need your opinion

There is this article on Hindu Unity the terrorist organization that has made threats against people like the Pope, Musharraf and even Sonia Gandhi.

First, the organization's OFFICIAL website lists people on hit lists. I added a CITED entry pointing to that specific page but this guy keeps removing it.
Second, they keep remvoing the Hinduism and India categories. Now, some time back there was an issue with Osama's article where I said that since he's an evil devil, he should not be identified as a Muslim but several back-and-forths later they said that that label will stand no matter how bad that makes the religion look. Shouldn't the same logic be applied here? Will appreciate ur thoughts.--Disinterested 08:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really not my problem, nor a field in which I care to dabble too much. I am not very familiar with internal Pakistani or Indian politics, nor am I particularly interested. The only reason I edited/was watching the Islam in China article was to fix a little dangly bit at the end of an odd-looking sentence: [1]. While I am not uninterested in the topic(s) at hand, you might be better off seeking help/advice/guidance at Wikipedia's Islamic portal, where the relevant admins host several relevant projects. On a final note, I'm pleased to point out that Madman_0014 was banned from the wiki for a certain length of time, over the Islam in China changes. MrZaius^talk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please read over WP:3RR and realise it only applies to using over 4 reverts on one page in a 24 hour time span. I will warn the user about copyrights though. Sasquatch t|c 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks for pointing out my misreading of 3RR, as well. MrZaius^talk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you…

…for your gracious apology. It's easy to mis-read these things, no worries. —Phil | Talk 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-OPEC

Hi, Mrzaius. I just wanted to discuss the removal of the List of Oil Exporting Nations not in OPEC article. You redirected to the List of Oil Trading Nations article. I wanted to provide a more thorough list than that presented on the the latter article, which really only mentions a handful of the "NOPEC" nations.

Also note that the last two External Links I provided on the NOPEC page are examples of the term being used in that sense, i.e. not in relation to the "No to OPEC" legislation in the USA.

Ordinary Person 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just improve the List of Oil Trading Nations article so that it is more comprehensive, yes?

Ordinary Person 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly be the preferred approach. MrZaius^talk 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Keynes

Like it says in the footnote to Milton Keynes "for a history of the origin of the name, see Milton Keynes Village". --Concrete Cowboy 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks mate, you saved me a heap of work!

G'day Mrzaius. Thank you for your nice job of disambig on the Traffic control page. It's neat, tidy, and saved me a lot of time.

Off-topic, luuuuv COBOL, it does what FORTRAN cannot, and is much simpler than PL/1... :) Gordon | Talk, 21 October 2006 @03:17 UTC

[edit] List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction & Wikipedia:WikiProject_ListMakers

Since you've edited this list considerably, I was wondering if you had any opinions as to what could be done to clean it up, deal with all the red links with no annotations (and possible non-notable items), and generally ensure that all the entries are actually on-topic. I've raised some concerns previously on the talk page, for reference. –Unint 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I am currently also trying to decide whether a different list, currently at AfD, can be improved... Does that make me someone bona fide interested in lists? Caretaking for any one list can be, as you've shown, a gargantuan task requiring either knowledge or extensive research (which is why I was watching for editors on this one intently), so I don't suppose you're looking for a task force that will deal with any list regardless of subject. (I haven't seen many strongly active maintenance-based WikiProjects as opposed to subject-based ones, but correct me if I'm wrong.) What kind of project structure did you have in mind? –Unint 02:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Having never participated in a WikiProject, I didn't give any concious thought to structure, but I was thinking primarily of just setting up some shared space where we could list three things:

1: Massively overblown See Also sections that need to be broken out into seperate articles.

2: Lists like ours that just need cleanup, hopefully attracting editors more interested in interlinking topics than authoring large swathes of content.

However, as you say, there do not seem to be many guidelines for the manufacture and syntax of such lists. The closest thing is the only tangentially related, and, in this case, probably inapplicable Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), which seems more related to the highly stylized episode lists. An organized group of Wikipedians with overlapping interests may be able to hammer out usable general guidelines for lists not covered by the aforelinked. We could provide some generic guidance to those asking questions like the ones posed in the talk page for

If this could be better dealt with by an existing project or through some other mechanism with which I am unfamiliar, I'd be very much interested in bugging/using them. I note that an External Links project exists, but none exist for the maintnance of See Also sections. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also - The project primarily was created/proposed when I got myself into a huff over the degree to which the See Also sections were swallowing up the articles mentioned elsewhere, and were largely breaking with the style guide by providing lengthy descriptors. As such, it might be advisable to propose a task force within some other project, such as the (possibly dead?) project for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linkification.

In the long term, I would love to dust off my coding skills and find a way to compare the length of any given article against the length of its See Also section, allowing automated flagging of articles in need attention.

However, the idea may have simply been unnecessary/untenable. Any thoughts would certainly be welcomed. My apologies for the unruliness & length of my response. MrZaius^talk 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Copying this discussion to the Talk page for the project, in hopes that it might attract some interest when/if linked to from the list of WikiProjectsMrZaius^talk 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Socially responsible investing

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Mrzaius! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule investmentu\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

rm'd the link and replaced it with an NPR/Slate link. Wasn't spam, but rather a noteworthy mutual fund that's attracting a lot of news attention, including coverage in Forbes, NPR at least twice, Mad Money, etc. Seemed worthy of inclusion. MrZaius^talk 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longest articles

Here is the real answer to my question the other day Special:Longpages. Jablair51 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James K. Polk article

Your recent edit to the polk article might not be up to WP standards. In the comments you mention "no need to cite since it's referenced in other Wikipedia articles." However, WP:ATT (which recently obsolted WP:RS) basically says that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. So it would probably make sense to put back the citation-needed template, or to find the reference the other articles also refer to. Since you made a series of edits, I wasn't sure which was the best route. Best regards --Otheus 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, as the statements were nothing but comparisons of the ages of Presidents. As the date of every President's death is public knowledge and present in each President's article, I'm not sure I see why a source would be necessary for the trivially simple statement that he was the youngest former President to die or that he enjoyed the shortest time of retirement. Note that List_of_U.S._Presidents_by_time_as_former_president is already linked to in that same sentence, and that it fully explains the situation.

Barring those situations where a citation template shows up in a tiny summary with a fully sourced article linked to with the main-article template, I would normally always support the notion that the Wikipedia is not an adequate source in and of itself. Recursion is bad. However, these statements seem so trivially simple that I simply do not see the need for a reference. Will copy these comments to the Polk article to make them more accessible to any other interested parties. Might be best to carry on this conversation there, if it need continue. MrZaius^talk 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osoberry

Thanks for taking notice. I was just making the page for a friend who is about to write the article. It should be looking better in a moment.

[edit] Royal Dutch Shell

Well done having a go at RDS, it looks to me like it is heading the right way. Please do not americanize spelling. Policy is that we use both British and American English and changing from one to another is considered edit warring. Thanks --BozMo talk 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused, but I was on a major spelling blitz after correcting numerous errors on the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell page. Basically got to the point where I was automating the process and running an American English dictionary spellchecker against both documents. Now, please note that it is actually policy to write an article with a single standard spelling technique in mind, be it British or American, to allow for computers to check the article. Take particular note of the Manual of Style's section: "Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout." Thanks for the feedback, - PS: Will copy over to the RDS talk page. MrZaius^talk 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course. But the RDS article was originally written in British English and Shell generally uses British English on its website. One spelling you corrected was actually a direct quote from their website in British English. Therefore I think here we leave with BE. --BozMo talk 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And properly so. I have no objections. I was, admittedly, half asleep when running the spell check, after fixing the Controversies article. MrZaius^talk 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters who can manipulate earth

You nominated this article exactly one hour after its creation. If you had checked the history, the article was created to replace a category. I created all the list articles at the same time and am populating them now. Thanks.—DomBot / ChiDom ^talk 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may, why would you want to duplicate the category with an automatically generated article? The general trend seems to go in the opposite direction, given the added overhead required to maintain a list article, compared with a category. Won't move to AfD, but I still don't really see the point of the article. MrZaius^talk 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The category isn't being duplicated, it will be deleted and the list article replaces it. This was decided at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14#Fictional characters by power; I'm just performing the actions that were the outcome of the discussion.—DomBot / ChiDom ^talk 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Busch Stadium

I need a bit of your expertise with something. The article for Busch Stadium has a bit of a formating error, but I have no idea how to fix it. Specifically around the sections for Photo Gallery and Ballpark Firsts. Care to either give me some advice or fix it yourself? Thanks. ;) Jablair51 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it. MrZaius^talk 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! All they did was forget to close the curly brackets at the end of the table. MrZaius^talk 00:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That was quick work there, sir. I knew you'd be able to see it. Obviously not my article, but it was bugging the hell out of me. BTW, don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday night than edit Wikipedia? Jablair51 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dance with monkeys. MrZaius^talk 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you be talking trash about The Monkees. That Mike Nesmith was a genius before his time. Jablair51 01:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/r/z/User_talk%7EMrzaius_6e17.html"